Give Sisco another Chance

[Philip]

3 hours ago, El_Duderino said:

Last year he had “poor bat speed” , now he can’t throw...

If he OPSes .950 all year I don’t care if he never throws another runner out and neither should you.

Except he doesn’t.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

..and yet, people are all for more "three true outcomes" baseball, so more strikeouts are ok, but getting thrown out on the bases isn't? Both are terrible outs, right? At least you had guys on base in one of those scenarios. From the rest of your post, it seems it's pointless to advance more than one base at a time because it's probably going to be an effort in vain. Any time you reach second base and there's no runner on first, it's probably all for naught. Why even try then? It's such a defeatist viewpoint to me. Let's not even try since there's a good chance it won't work out. Even hitters fail to get on base 2/3rds of the time or worse and that doesn't seem to be getting much better either.

I would take more singles over more strikeouts any day even if some guys get thrown out because at least something is happening. It's no wonder younger people think baseball is boring. Three true outcomes is bad any way you look at it and it's something baseball should be trying to get away from, not do more of. I've been watching a lot of older baseball games on YT from the 70's and 80's and despite fewer home runs, there's also fewer strikeouts and games are more entertaining to watch. Hell, a ground out to shortstop is more entertaining than a strikeout. The HR obsession is not good for the sport and some of the more entertaining aspects of baseball have fallen away to make room for it. It's sad that I enjoy watching games that happened 25-40 years ago more than I do games today. It should be the opposite and not hard to see why younger people think it's boring. It's not the game length, it's that nothing happens most of the time now.

I actually agree with you that the current game isn't as exciting to watch because fewer balls are put in play, strikeouts and walks are up, etc..   I've stated it many times on this board.   I agree with most of what you say about the game being less enjoyable to watch today than it used to be.  

But there's a difference between what makes for a more enjoyable game and what is the optimum strategy to pursue in a certain situation.   If I'm a manager trying my best to win, I will pursue the optimum strategy, whatever that may be.

To address the problems of the game being less fun to watch, the stewards of the game would have to make changes:  de-juice the ball; set roster limits and other rules to cut down on super pitcher specialization where 4 or 5 pitchers are used per team per game and they can throw all out for a couple innings; even limit shifting.   (I personally don't like the last one, but it would allow more non-HR balls to be put in play).   

But whatever the rules are, a manager should do whatever he has to do to maximize his team's chance to win, and stealing doesn't do that unless it has a very high success rate.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, Sessh said:

I generally disagree with all the "data" about how meaningless stolen bases are because I see that data as being flawed and meaningless itself. Any data that tries to tell me that getting a runner into scoring position is "marginal" or meaningless is data I disregard as flawed immediately. All that data is really doing is isolating one or two aspects of hitting with RISP based on how the runner got in scoring position in the first place which really doesn't matter at all. Once the runner is there, how he got there means nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not he scores afterwards. If it's a lead-off double and he doesn't score, is that a strike against lead-off doubles or is it just a failure of the rest of the team to hit with RISP?

Stolen bases create scoring chances. They don't create runs. Hitting with RISP after a stolen base creates runs. Getting a runner into scoring position is never "marginal" or meaningless especially if it can be done without the batter having to do anything. It's a scoring chance, not a guarantee and of course there's the risk of being thrown out, but also the risk of a double play. I'm not against the stolen base at all provided we're not throwing away too many outs. Once the stolen base is successful, the rest is up to the hitters and it is on them if the runner in scoring position doesn't score.

You are correct.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

Except he doesn’t.

He doesn't what?

[Sessh]

15 minutes ago, SteveA said:

To address the problems of the game being less fun to watch, the stewards of the game would have to make changes:  de-juice the ball; set roster limits and other rules to cut down on super pitcher specialization where 4 or 5 pitchers are used per team per game and they can throw all out for a couple innings; even limit shifting.   (I personally don't like the last one, but it would allow more non-HR balls to be put in play).   

But whatever the rules are, a manager should do whatever he has to do to maximize his team's chance to win, and stealing doesn't do that unless it has a very high success rate.

If those steps were taken, I think it would increase stolen bases which would be a good thing since it would be harder to just go for the long ball all the time. I admit that I am slightly torn on this. I think we just need to strike a better balance between home runs and other offensive strategies. I would say that I agree with what was said earlier in the thread about 70% being the low bar on acceptable success rate. The question is how much to de-juice the ball? I'm not sure another dead ball era would be good, either.

See, this is where I think my limits are on analytics because they don't care about the entertainment value of the on-field product. Risk taking is entertaining even if it doesn't always work in your favor and that includes stealing, bunting, squeezing and all the other little things that add spontaneity to the game. I also think that if stealing became widely used again, we'd see more players coming up who were better at it and would not neglect their speed tool. We'd have fewer slower players at least. I think speed has been one of the casualties of HR obsession with analytics now piling on as well and it's something that the game would probably be better off if it had more of once again.

[Tony-OH]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, Tony, you sound a bit defensive (no pun intended) in this post and a few others in this thread.   I didn’t see this game, and I will acknowledge your point that Sisco has a poor arm and his pop times are slow.    But it seems to me there are four factors in whether a runner is safe or out on an accurate throw.   

1.   Pitcher’s time to the plate.

2.   Catcher’s pop time.

3.   Speed of the runner.

4.    Jump of the runner.   

Your post addressed the first two, not the last two.   You could have two pitches with the exact same TTTP, but in one case the runner is 25 feet down the line when the pitch is released and in another case he’s 35 feet down the line.    (Those numbers are made up; I don’t know how far down the line the runner would typically be.)    I don’t know what Bundy’s TTTP is, but I do know I’ve seen two or three occasions where a runner took off and he never even looked, and the runner would have been safe no matter what his TTTP was.    

Anyway, again I’m not defending Sisco or commenting on these specific steals, which I didn’t see.   Just pointing out that a bad TTTP isn’t the only factor in saying that the base was stolen on the pitcher.    

Sorry Frobby,  but you are well off base here. I talked about the jump of the runner in both steals and I also spoke to the rankings of where Sisco stands in MLB. I never once said all of the steals was always Sisco's fault, but he clearly is well below average in this regard and has always been regarded this way by stats and scouting reports.

I'm not defensive at all. What I find ridiculous is when people want to point out things they saw live and want to discount video work and actual timing. People can have any opinion they want, but when you start discounting what I clearly proved with actual video analysis I'm going to call you on it.

Murpdog always looks for some reason to go against the grain with me and all you did is make him feel good by backing his personal observations that were based on a one time viewing live. You are better than that.

 

[Philip]

30 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He doesn't what?

OPS 950 all year

[El_Duderino]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

OPS 950 all year

But he is, right now at .948, so....

but yea, that will probably come down a good bit

[ChuckS]

2 minutes ago, El_Duderino said:

But he is, right now at .948, so....

but yea, that will probably come down a good bit

29 strikeouts in 88 plate appearances.  The slugging's gotta come way down.  

He could be an .848 OPS type bat though even with the high K rate.  Which is still quite remarkable considering where he was last year.  

[Frobby]

11 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Sorry Frobby,  but you are well off base here. I talked about the jump of the runner in both steals and I also spoke to the rankings of where Sisco stands in MLB. I never once said all of the steals was always Sisco's fault, but he clearly is well below average in this regard and has always been regarded this way by stats and scouting reports.

I'm not defensive at all. What I find ridiculous is when people want to point out things they saw live and want to discount video work and actual timing. People can have any opinion they want, but when you start discounting what I clearly proved with actual video analysis I'm going to call you on it.

Murpdog always looks for some reason to go against the grain with me and all you did is make him feel good by backing his personal observations that were based on a one time viewing live. You are better than that.

 

Tony -

I probably should know better than to insert myself into a dispute between you and another poster.    I don’t know anything about past debates between you and MurphDogg.   But after he commented that he was at the game and thought those bases were stolen on the pitcher, this was your response:

20 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

By the way, on the first stolen base Brooks was 1.28 to home plate (1.3 is considered average) and Sisco's pop time was actually right on his average 2.10 which is amongst the lowest in baseball. That one is more on Sisco.

The second steal was definitely on Brooks. He was slow to the plate 1.5 and both runners never stopped moving. He clearly did not think they would try a double steal. Sisco actually had a 2.0 pop time on the second throw but it wasn't close because of bad a job Brooks did. 

There was nothing in your post that addressed what kind of jump the runner got.     So then he responded:

20 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

Watching live, from behind the plate, it looked to me that the the runner took off on the first one super early on Brooks. So even if he was fast to the plate, the runner had him timed really well and an additional .1 or even .2 on Sisco's pop time wouldn't have been enough to nab him.

To me that was a reasonable response to your point about pop times.    Then you came back with:

18 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I'm glad you have the ability to watch the pitcher's delivery and the jump of the runner live during a game and make that assessment. All I did was go back and watch actual video of the two steals, watching while timing the pitcher's delivery and pop times and then another take to watch the jumps, but hey, you do you.

You aren't the fist person or last person who thinks they are right, proven wrong with facts and details, and then still wants to stick to your live in game view. OldFan#5 would be proud. At least Chance Sisco sounds like a baseball name so you got that going for you.

That was the first time you mentioned that you had watched the video another time to watch the jumps.   But your post makes it sound like MurphDogg was arguing that his eyewitness view of the play was better than your video review, and to me, that wasn’t what he was saying.    

I will butt out now.   As I said, I didn’t see either play and have no opinion as to whether these steals were wholly or partially on the pitcher.    And I don’t have any quarrel with the observation that Sisco has a weak arm and teams will take advantage of that.    

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, Frobby said:

Long posts here.    Obviously, stealing a base increases the chance of scoring a run, and getting caught stealing decreases it and in a two-out situation completely kills it.    And we know pretty much exactly how much it increases/decreases the odds in every situation from charts like these: https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=2800999.   So yes, I believe the data.   Why wouldn’t I?

If someone is arguing against the data, against the math... we're going to disagree, and they're going to be wrong.  Steals are down about 50% from their early-80s peak because of math.

[interloper]

Sisco feels like a potential trade chip if he keeps hitting. Not this year, but in the next couple years. Some team wants this kid as their starting catcher and it's not going to be us with Adley coming. He's too young and offensively gifted to be a backup. We have too many guys playing 1B or learning to play 1B. I'm going to just go ahead and doubt he can play 3B with any skill (he's put on some [good] weight and he's slow).

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Sessh said:

The question is how much to de-juice the ball? I'm not sure another dead ball era would be good, either.

We'd be better off with the 2019 ball and dramatically longer distances to fences.  Unfortunately that's very hard to do in most parks.  Nothing about today's power game that wouldn't be more exciting with a park that's 333-410-475-422-375.  And the 475' sign is on a 60' tall in-play scoreboard.

I would make and strictly enforce a rule that says that for all parks built after today, the sum of the LF/LC/CF/RC/RF fence distances has to be at least 1950 ft. And no fence can be less than 300', no fence between LC and RC can be less than 385', and no straightaway CF fence can be under 425'.  And the commish or his designee gets to subjectively review all designs to ensure they're not trying to game the system and create a Kiner's Corner HR porch.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

11 hours ago, ChuckS said:

29 strikeouts in 88 plate appearances.  The slugging's gotta come way down.  

He could be an .848 OPS type bat though even with the high K rate.  Which is still quite remarkable considering where he was last year.  

If Sisco can pull that off the Orioles can play his bat at another position.

Hyde needs to let Sisco sink or swim against LHP otherwise he is just a platoon player. 

[sportsfan8703]

10 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

If Sisco can pull that off the Orioles can play his bat at another position.

Hyde needs to let Sisco sink or swim against LHP otherwise he is just a platoon player. 

Severino needs ABs too. Plus Sisco can’t catch everyday. Sitting vs LHP is the perfect set up right now.